And to me, it seems like many players want to keep Tera around. In particular, the vast majority of posts in the PR thread indicate a desire to keep it around while a smaller, but still clear, majority of the points made in OU discussion thread reflect the same. Of course, there are still a lot of reasons to keep Tera discussions going such as its survey response and the ardent expressions of anti-Tera sentiment in the other posts.
I see why you might have these subjective opinions if you spent all of your time on forums rather than the live playerbase in PS! OU chat.
The culture in the OU chat room is quite literally the opposite as the forums.
Most, if not all the mods, voices, etc are vocally anti-tera.
The second you bring up Tera, chat turns into a "Tera sucks" party.
We also didn't capture any data about Tera until recently, when we could have been this entire time.
That misstep aside, as you said, the survey indicates that a super majority of our playerbase has a problem with Tera in it's current form.
You don't have to guess, or feel it out, or say what you think it seems- we literally have hard data that shows most of the players want something to be done about tera.
I'm not sure how a suspect that doesn't yield any results is even on the table.
From the data, if tera is untouched, that means a supermajority of players are being literally ignored.
However, if we are looking for the most skillful and completitive metagame with layers of strategy that still has potential for balancing, then Tera very much has a place.
While my historic tiering insight makes me feel the former is important and we should do something on Tera, it seems like a lot of the community embraces Tera and aligns more with the latter.
Competitive and Balanced survey scores are terrible, and have been since SV surveys started.
I don't know how you can draw the conclusion that it "very much has a place" in regards to the comp aspects.
We can mental gymnastic some of these previous scores and blame Pao or whatever- but this recent survey there were no banned mons running around. The meta is in its most solid state since launch, and qualified voters gave comp aspects of the game a 5/10.
Once again, you might feel a certain way, but the data is objective, and clearly shows how the community feels.
How is this just not being considered?
Super-majority has an issue with Tera in it's current form.
Survey scores reflect an uncompetitive and unbalanced metagame.
If tera is untouched, is your plan to just hope it gets better?
Do you really think Gambit is the reason for the low scores, and that suspecting it will improve things?
Let's say comp scores magically go up, what about the tera survey results?
Is the plan to just ignore that?
If so, just go ahead and leave "How do you feel about Tera?" off any future surveys- might as well go full censorship.
On the flaws of running a suspect ladder without Tera:
Theory would be adding a suspect ladder without Tera. Reflecting the actual current metagame is in no way theory. The premise of those saying that we are leaning it up to theory without adding a second ladder have it backwards.
The metagame without Tera would be vastly different with many unforeeen differences. There would be potential for many bans or unbans as well as different things being used (across Pokemon themselves, sets on Pokemon, etc.) Using this blindly as an experimental variable in the most important suspect ever would be a historically bad decision.
The point of a suspect test is to determine if something is broken in the metagame or not. The metagame itself should be the sole determinant of this.
If it’s broken, we act from there accordingly. There may be more shifts or bans from there, but there’s ample time to accommodate to that. This goes for suspects of Pokemon and other variables.
The point is not to determine if the metagame is immediately better with or without something as there are so many external factors there and we cannot account for future ramifications the same. For example, if we suspect and ban Kingambit, it’s feasible the day1 metagame may be worse despite a potential ban the community wants as Gholdengo and Dragapult may run rampant. But with adaptation or future suspects, it can ultimately be better in the long haul. Using that day1 metagame solely without that one thing (be it Kingambit or, in this instance, Tera) for anything of shortsighted and a bad tiering practice.
I already discussed this with tiering admin when multiple people publicly brought this up and someone on my council did, and they confirmed a non-Tera ladder is not on the table. I am not even committed to a suspect test at all, but it won’t be marred with a second ladder if it occurs.
So not only is a suspect ladder off the table, but a suspect might not even happen.
Again,
how are steps to address the community feedback that lead to no results even being considered?
Tera is unique and has evoked a wide array of responses.
Yeah, it really is unique, and requires a unique approach.
We have mons that can now turn into another type at any moment, but we're adhering to decade old dogma?
Your only reason why to not just toss up a simple no tera suspect ladder is, rules? That are often changed, and were literally made up?
Why is there such an aversion to letting players see what SV would look like w/o Tera?
If tera is so skillful, and rewarding, and fun, than let it speak for itself?
Forums are literally a handful of vocal users and should barely be taken into account when compared to survey results.
A super majority of qualified players told you that they have an issue with tera, and they think the meta is barely competitive or balanced- why is the biggest step you're taking a random forum to let the same 10 anti tera posters and the same 10 pro tera posters have an online tea party?
Hundreds of ppl told you that they want something to be done about Tera, and you won't even commit to a suspect.
How are you proudly letting everyone who voted "Action" that you simply aren't concerned with their voice?
Ignoring the poor balance/comp scores is one thing, if you don't care w/e- but ignoring a supermajority result seems ridiculous.
Mons have gotten QB with less support than the last tera survey.
Yet, a suspect isn't even promised?
I understand a philosophy of "path of least resistance" dude but at a certain point it's just sweeping problems under the rug.
Apologies for being so critical, it truly comes from a place of utter confusion about your statements in these posts.
, 
, and 
to Ubers. Me personally, I think Tera Blast is a neat concept. It adds a unique element to teambuilding and creativity going hand in hand with the mechanic for fun and interesting interactions. And once again I ask you, do you prefer having more Pokémon? Or do you prefer the benefits of Tera Blast? I do believe Tera Blast should have it's own thread for further discussions in the future.
